ACLU of Ohio Helps Parents Who Were Banned From Petitioning On or Near School Property

RICHMOND, Va. – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and affirmed a lower court order that required the government to release him on bail as his case proceeded. The court also rejected the government’s request to move the case from Virginia to Texas. “[In] our view,” the court wrote, “denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.” The court later expanded: “[An] unbroken line of caselaw also accords with common sense: if a noncitizen is challenging their detention pending removal, then waiting for their removal proceedings does them no good. They have already been detained, allegedly in violation of the Constitution. This ‘absurd’ reading of the INA would make such detention claims ‘effectively unreviewable,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to embrace it.” In March 2025, ICE arrested and detained Dr. Suri, a lawful visa holder from India whose wife is a U.S. citizen, outside his Virginia home in retaliation for his associations and speech in support of Palestinian rights. Dr. Suri was detained for nearly six weeks over a thousand miles away from his wife and children at an infamous private detention center in Texas known for its human rights abuses. A federal judge ordered his release from detention in May 2025 while his case continued in federal court. “Today reaffirms my faith that an independent judiciary remains the truest guardian of liberty, due process, and the rule of law. I am profoundly grateful to the judges who upheld these constitutional principles and gave my case the careful, deliberate consideration it deserved,” said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. “I remain, as ever, committed to the pursuit of justice through lawful and peaceful means. We should remember that a democracy without an accessible writ of habeas corpus is a democracy in name only; as the honorable court so aptly observed, the scope of habeas corpus ‘must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.’ I am proud of those who fought for me, and I am proud of every moment of life. Be courageous and stand for justice. Free Palestine.” On appeal, the Trump administration argued that federal district courts don’t have the authority to review the constitutionality of Dr. Suri’s detention until the Department of Justice-controlled immigration process, which can take months or even years, is completed. The administration also argued that because it quickly swept Dr. Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court does not have jurisdiction to hear his petition, and that it should be handled by a court in Texas, where it chose to take him. Today, a panel of judges from the Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments 2-1, finding that federal courts must be able to review constitutional claims stemming from immigration detention, and that his case should stay in Virginia. “We are elated that Dr. Suri will remain free with his family and we are grateful that the court has seen through the government's brazen attempts to silence pro-Palestine speech,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The federal government cannot do an end run around the First Amendment by locking people up for their speech and denying them their day in court. Immigration laws cannot be abused to silence dissent, and we are grateful that today, justice prevailed.” This ruling is the third opinion from a federal court of appeals addressing the question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars immediate federal court review of a noncitizen’s claim of unlawful detention in retaliation for their speech. In January, the Third Circuit ruled against Mahmoud Khalil, holding that the INA does bar such claims. And just two days ago, the Second Circuit ruled against Mohsen Mahdawi, agreeing with the Third Circuit’s analysis. Addressing the Khalil v. Trump decision, the Fourth Circuit was clear: “We disagree.” “We are gratified that the court recognized the basic principle that the government cannot escape judicial review of their patently unconstitutional actions — here, arresting Dr. Khan Suri, transferring him far away from his family and community, and detaining and attempting to deport him for nothing more than his associations and constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Similar to the cases of Mr. Khalil, Mr. Mahdawi, and other students, Dr. Suri was arrested in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. He was additionally targeted because of his U.S. citizen wife’s speech, her Palestinian origins, and her familial ties. On social media, Dr. Suri criticized U.S. support of Israel’s assault on Gaza, motivated by the time he spent volunteering in Gaza and fear for his wife’s family members who still lived there with no way to flee during the war. The administration has falsely argued that Dr. Suri’s presence in the United States “compromised a compelling foreign policy interest” and therefore, under a rarely used section of the INA, it had the right to deport him. Dr. Suri’s immigration court proceedings remain ongoing. “ICE abducted Dr. Khan Suri from his home in Virginia before moving him among five different ICE facilities across three states in a shameless attempt to find a court that would be friendlier to his unlawful detention,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “We are elated that the Fourth Circuit saw through the Trump administration’s blatant attempt to bend the law to their will and rejected their bid to re-detain our client thousands of miles away from his family in Virginia. The First Amendment protects all of us — regardless of citizenship — and we will continue to fight for his constitutional rights.” Dr. Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Van Der Hout LLP. The opinion can be read here.

NEW YORK – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a ruling that determined federal courts have jurisdiction when immigration enforcement detains noncitizens in retaliation for their protected speech. The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked the authority to release Columbia University graduate student Mohsen Mahdawi on bail in April 2025 after he was detained at his citizenship interview and held for over two weeks in retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The decision does not go into effect immediately and the government has no lawful basis to redetain or deport Mr. Mahdawi as the appeals process proceeds. “The government is claiming the unprecedented power to detain people for months or even years on end to censor their speech, with no ability to challenge their detention in court. This is as absurd as it is dangerous,” said Michael Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued on behalf of Mr. Mahdawi last year. “We will continue to fight for our client and for his right to prompt judicial review.” Earlier this year, immigration judge Nina Froes dismissed the deportation case against Mr. Mahdawi on the grounds that the government failed to authenticate a memo purportedly from Marco Rubio that declared him deportable under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Froes was subsequently fired from her position as part of the Trump administration’s larger efforts to use the immigration court system to accelerate deportations. In April, after the government appealed that decision, the DOJ-controlled Board of Immigration Appeals held that Mr. Mahdawi was removable and remanded proceedings to a new immigration judge, who issued an order of removal last month. Mr. Mahdawi’s appeal of that decision is pending. “Today’s decision is a grave setback, although I am confident justice will ultimately prevail,” said Mohsen Mahdawi, who has been a lawful permanent resident for more than a decade. “It reflects a dangerous failure under political pressure, one that risks turning the federal courts into instruments of politics rather than guardians of constitutional freedom. By weakening the First Amendment and creating different tiers of rights for citizens and non-citizens, this ruling hands the government a dangerous power: the power to intimidate, censor, and punish dissent without meaningful restraint. But I still have faith that the full court will correct the legal error and restore the constitutional principles that protect all people equally. This struggle continues for Palestine, for dignity and equality everywhere, and for the democratic promise of freedom that must belong to us all; until Palestine is free.” “The Second Circuit's decision is incredibly dangerous, not just for Mohsen but for all other noncitizens the Trump administration has its vengeful sights upon," said Luna Droubi of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP. "Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to imprison people for their constitutionally-protected speech. If the Trump administration can target Mohsen for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with. Despite today's disappointing ruling, we will keep fighting for justice for Mohsen and to protect the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” Mr. Mahdawi is represented by Cyrus Mehta and David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta Partners, PLLC; Luna Droubi, Matthew Melewski, and Tala Alfoqaha of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP; Andrew Delaney of Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group; CLEAR; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the ACLU of Vermont.

ST. LOUIS — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of North Dakota filed an amicus brief today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Thunderhawk v. Kirchmeier, a case that challenges the government’s decision to close a public road during a Standing Rock protest, preventing people from assembling to express their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the brief, the ACLU argues that roads of every kind — including rural roads, multi-lane roads and high-speed roads — have served as sites of protest throughout United States history, from the civil rights marches and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and ’70s to more recent protests, including marches in opposition to abortion, in support of rural healthcare and against police brutality. Courts across the country have long recognized that roads are quintessential traditional public forums and open for public assembly, debate, and the communication of ideas. “The government’s argument disregards our history of protest in the United States and misinterprets our fundamental First Amendment rights. Our right to assemble and protest in the streets should never depend on the type of roadway chosen,” said Andrew Malone, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of North Dakota. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that protesting in public streets is a time-honored American right. It is long overdue for police officers, prosecutors and government officials to uphold this constitutional standard.” For nearly eight years and through multiple rounds of dismissals and appeals, the government has argued that some streets, including rural roads, don’t belong to the community and that the road at issue in this case doesn’t deserve the same protection afforded to other public spaces. But, the ACLU argues in the brief, as one of the few communal spaces in rural areas, these roads are uniquely positioned to offer rural communities – and those wishing to address them – a public space in which to associate, communicate thoughts and discuss public issues. “Protesting on public roads is as American as apple pie, and that doesn’t change whether the road is a rural highway in North Dakota or 42nd St in New York City,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “People can turn the page in a magazine or change the channel on TV, but streets remain one of the few places where we have to confront ideas we might otherwise tune out—and that’s why our rights to protest on streets, sidewalks, and in public parks are so important.”